Julian Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London

60 posts in this topic

Julian Assange

 

Quote

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy seven years ago to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.

The Met Police said he was arrested for failing to surrender to the court.

Ecuador's president Lenin Moreno said it withdrew Mr Assange's asylum after his repeated violations to international conventions.

But WikiLeaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Mr Assange's political asylum "in violation of international law".

Home Secretary Sajid Javid tweeted: "I can confirm Julian Assange is now in police custody and rightly facing justice in the UK.

"I would like to thank Ecuador for its cooperation & metpoliceuk for its professionalism. No one is above the law."

Mr Assange, 47, had refused to leave the embassy, claiming if he did he would be extradited to the United States for questioning over the activities of WikiLeaks.



Here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG what is going to happen to his cat? :'(

 

But in all seriousness I can't believe they let him stay that long, especially after he hacked their computers.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeonG said:

OMG what is going to happen to his cat? :'(

 

But in all seriousness I can't believe they let him stay that long, especially after he hacked their computers.

 

hopefully the cat will be adopted by someone who will refrain from making it wear neckties. 

 

true crime against felinity!

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Details on the indictment in the US for which this arrest was made.
 

Quote

The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications. Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.

 

During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.” To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

 

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeonG said:

OMG what is going to happen to his cat? :'(

 

5caf48fc6427c_fark_gtIITqSpZpoQk-YLjLqAt

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AlexTr said:

Ahahaha! They had to carry that big fucking pussy out. He couldn't even take his arrest like a grown ass man!

 

Classy.   I wondered who (it was definitely a man) kicked you repeatedly while you were growing up.   

 

The Assange case and Snowden case always prompt the fascists to show their cards.    The arrest and potential extradition has serious implications for press freedom worldwide and you are cheering it on in wannabe thug mode.   

 

If she had just campaigned more in the midwest...  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, balticus said:

The arrest and potential extradition has serious implications for press freedom worldwide

 

Conspiracy to hack private data is not journalism. That's pretty settled law. Are you behind on your constitutional case law reading? Oh, and anyone who commits what they believe is civil disobedience and then refuses to handle the consequences is definitely a pussy. I'm no dworkinian. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence that Assange and Wikileaks are just pro-Russia partisan hacks.

 

Quote

In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records. 

 

WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy. 

 

The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation.

 

“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

 

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.

 

(The account is widely believed to be operated solely by Assange, the group’s founder, but in a Twitter message to FP, the organization said it is maintained by “staff.”)

 

In 2014, the BBC and other news outlets reported on the cache, which revealed details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine. However, the information from that hack was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down.

 

“We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”

 

The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny.

 

In the months leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of potentially damaging emails about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign, information the U.S. intelligence community believes was hacked as part of a Kremlin-directed campaign. Assange’s role in publishing the leaks sparked allegations that he was advancing a Russian-backed agenda.

 

Back in 2010, Assange vowed to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complicit or useful idiot? It seems pretty clear from the Foreign Policy article that it's complicit.

 

Quote

Court documents have revealed that it was Russian intelligence — using the Guccifer persona — that provided Mr. Assange thousands of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the personal account of John D. Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign.

 

Another question is whether Mr. Assange was a conduit between the Russian hackers and the Trump campaign. Mr. Assange exchanged emails with Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Trump’s eldest son, during the campaign, and a Trump campaign official sent Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser to the president, to get information about the hacked Democratic emails, according to a January indictment by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel.

 

Mr. Mueller concluded his investigation without an indictment that directly connected WikiLeaks, the Russians and the Trump campaign, suggesting that prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence that Mr. Assange knowingly engaged in a conspiracy with Russia to help the Trump campaign.

 

But the report drafted by Mr. Mueller’s team, and expected to be released next week, could have additional details about the ties between the Trump campaign and Mr. Assange. Those details could be redacted by the Justice Department, however, if officials believe the material includes classified intelligence, said Carrie Cordero, a former official with the Justice Department’s National Security Division and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

“What was the actual interaction between Russian intelligence surrogates, WikiLeaks and Trump campaign surrogates?” she said. “That is a question that has not yet been answered.”

 

Now, would anyone else like to admit to falling behind on their reading by offering a ridiculous opinion?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexTr said:

 

Conspiracy to hack private data is not journalism. That's pretty settled law. 

 

So a journalist who encourages or gives tips to sources about getting access is guilty?   

 

As usual, you clearly have not thought this through.   Back test it against the leaks during the hysterical Russiagate process and see where it lands a lot of "respectable" journalists. 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexTr said:

 

All you need to read is this paragraph and read the rest of the story critically and cross check the facts.   

 

Mr. Mueller concluded his investigation without an indictment that directly connected WikiLeaks, the Russians and the Trump campaign, suggesting that prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence that Mr. Assange knowingly engaged in a conspiracy with Russia to help the Trump campaign.

 

There are open questions about many parts of the investigation.   

 

If a journalist publishes something hostile to powerful interests, smearing the reporter with allegations of espionage and then demanding that the reporter prove the negative is not the way freedom of the press should work.   Otherwise, anyone without powerful backers risks going to jail for publishing unpopular stories. 

 

Proof and evidence rather than open questions and doubts are needed. 

 

If the US can demand extradition of an Australian journalist in the UK, it sets the precedent for China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Ukraine, Turkey and other countries with restricted press freedom to extradite.    

 

Russia! Russia! Russia!   - you never learn.   

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, balticus said:

So a journalist who encourages or gives tips to sources about getting access is guilty?   

 

Well, now, that's for a jury to decide, isn't it?

 

13 minutes ago, balticus said:

All you need to read is this paragraph and read the rest of the story critically and cross check the facts.   

 

Mr. Mueller concluded his investigation without an indictment that directly connected WikiLeaks, the Russians and the Trump campaign, suggesting that prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence that Mr. Assange knowingly engaged in a conspiracy with Russia to help the Trump campaign.

 

There are open questions about many parts of the investigation.   

 

What does this have to do with Chelsea Manning, to alleged co-conspirator in this case? ...uhm, that's a big fat nothing. When you read the indictment, you know, like people with an education would, you would see that this is not at all about Russia. How badly does that fuck up your facile and malleable understanding of what is at play here?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden may get him first.   They Swedes were taken by surprise as were not given any warning of his arrest.  The Swedish prosecutor has reacted extremely quickly and is reviewing whether to reactivate the case against him and request extradition, after complainent's lawyer put in request yesterday.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now